A Collaboratory for IMRT treatment planning research

1
A Collaboratory for IMRT treatment planning
research

• J Deasy1, E Lee2, M Langer3, T Bortfeld4, Y
  Zhang5, H Liu6, R Mohan6, R Ahuja7, J Dempsey7, A
  Pollack8, J Rosenman9, A Eisbruch10, R Rardin11,
  J Purdy1, K Zakarian1, J Alaly1
• (1) Washington Univ, Saint Louis, MO, (2) Georgia
  Inst Tech and Emory Univ, Atlanta, GA, (3)
  Indiana Univ, Indianapolis, IN, (4) Massachusetts
  General Hospital, Boston, MA, (5) Rice
  University, Houston, TX, (6) UT M.D. Anderson
  Cancer Center, Houston, TX, (7) University of
  Florida, Gainesville, FL, (8) Fox Chase Cancer
  Center, Philadelphia, PA, (9) Univ of North
  Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, (10) Univ Michigan,
  Ann Arbor, MI, (11) Purdue Univ, W. Lafayette,
  IN,

2
Acknowledgements

• NCI grants CA 85181, and CA 90445 (PI JOD)
• NSF Grant DMI 0331755 (PI Eva Lee)
• NCI support through the ATC grant (PI J Purdy)
• A grant from Computerized Medical Systems, Inc.
• Jim Deye of NCI

3
Motivation I

• Many IMRT treatment planning algorithms, but
• Few comparisons
• Tools for comparison and common data access are
  missing
• Common datasets are missing
• Few (no?) comparisons of techniques.

4
Motivation II

• Many optimization experts are not in the field of
  radiotherapy, e.g., in operations research
  groups.
• No access to radiotherapy datasets
• Little interaction with the field of radiotherapy

5
Approach

• Construct common collaboratory framework
  graphical and analytical plan review tools.
• Provide a common approach to generating test
  beamlet dosimetry data.
• Compile common benchmark suite of anonymized
  patient plans
• and IMRT prescription challenges.
• All publicly available and open-source.

6
Components

• CERR for plan review and analysis (common data
  format)
• Extensions to CERR to produce common beamlet
  dosimetry (ORART Toolbox)
• Treatment planning data exported in RTOG or DICOM
  format, converted to CERR format

7
CERR A Computational Environment for
Radiotherapy Research

• Matlab-based
• Cross-platform
• RTOG format-based
• Self-describing format
• Open-source
• Freely available via webpage http//deasylab.info,
  or http//radium.wustl.edu/cerr

8
Successful imports from

• CMS Focus (RTOG)
• Pinnacle (RTOG)
• TMS Helax (RTOG)
• Helios (DICOM)
• And others used for DICOM Connectathon
• No failuresso far

9
CERR current major components

• Version 2.5 beta
• Transverse, coronal, sagittal slice viewers
• DVH calculation and display
• DICOM-RT Toolbox (Spezi)
• Contouring/re-contouring tools
• Plan metric comparison tools
• IMRT beamlet calculations

10
CERR version 2.5 beta (latest released version)
11
Recomputed DVHs generally the same to within RMSE
of 1
(Zakarian et al., 2003 AAPM mtg)
12
MDACC dataset 1 (Liu)
13
FLA dataset 1 (Dempsey)
14
Wash-U Varian Dicom ex
15
Providing beamlet data

• Operations researchers typically start with a
  matrix description of the problem.
• In our case
• Much, much faster than iteratively recomputing
  dose

influence matrix
16
IMRT beamlet generation the ORART toolbox

• Software routines giving Matlab/CERR users access
  to beamlet dosimetry.
• Based on written CWG specification.
• Integrated with CERR.
• Generation of beamlet data
• Dosimetry data access within Matlab
• Multiple output formats (binary and ASCII-based).
  Easy to modify output formats

17
ORART Toolbox beamlet dosimetry GUI setup
Computation time, typically a few minutes on PCs
18
Access to beamlet data in Matlab
19
Plan by Eva Lee based on toolbox beamlet data
20
What will I be able to do with it?

• Import DICOM or RTOG datasets into Matlab
• Use on any PC or Unix workstation with Matlab
• Choose beams, generate beamlet matrices
• Recompute optimized dose
• Put back into CERR
• Compare with other researchers results

21
The ORART benchmark paradigm
(third-party)
22
Current issues

• Lack of built-in leaf sequencing. (To be added.)
• Lack of ability to re-export CT and contour data
  into commercial treatment planning system. (To be
  added.)
• Dosimetric accuracy (MC integration complete I.
  Kawrakow).

23
Ongoing

• Collection of patient datasets (the ORART
  benchmark)
• HN (U Mich)
• Lung (WUSTL and NC)
• Prostate (FCCC, R. Price)
• Group testing of tools
• Refinements of tools and I/O capabilities